Topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine for gastroscopy: a double-blinded, randomized cross-over study in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVES: The benefits of topical pharyngeal anesthesia for gastroscopy remain under debate. Articaine, a local anesthetic with fast onset and offset of action as well as low systemic toxicity, could be a promising choice for topical anesthesia. The objective of this study was to assess whether topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine is beneficial in sedated gastroscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized double-blinded cross-over study included nine volunteers who underwent two gastroscopies under conscious sedation. One was performed with topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine and the other with placebo. Hemodynamic parameters including autonomic nervous system state were recorded prior to and during the endoscopic procedure. The endoscopist and the volunteer assessed the endoscopy after the examination. RESULTS: Topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine resulted in less discomfort during esophageal intubation and higher patient satisfaction with the procedure. Topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine did not increase satisfaction or facilitate the procedure as rated by the endoscopist. There were no clinically relevant differences in hemodynamic parameters. CONCLUSION: The use of articaine for topical pharyngeal anesthesia results in less intubation-related discomfort and better satisfaction.

The role of routinely given hyoscine-N-butylbromide in colonoscopy: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: Hyoscine-N-butylbromide (HBB) has been proposed to ease colonoscopy and improve mucosal visualization, yet the results from previous studies are conflicting. In our prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study we aimed at evaluating whether routine administration of HBB, before and during colonoscopy, ease the procedure or increase the detection rate for polyps. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred fifty outpatients scheduled for an elective colonoscopy were randomized to receive intravenous injections of either 10 mg hyoscine-N-butylbromide or saline before insertion and at cecum. Patient tolerance and technical ease of colonoscopy were evaluated by visual analogue scale (VAS). Procedure times were recorded. Number of detected polyps per patient was evaluated as well. Heart rate was monitored with a pulse oximetry. RESULTS: HBB did not improve patient tolerance or technically ease the procedure as evaluated by VAS. However, HBB led to faster ileal intubation (1.5 vs 2.0 min, p < 0.001) and shorter total procedure time (22.0 vs 24.0 min, p = 0.03). Patients who received HBB also needed less often external abdominal pressure (48.6 vs 66.7%, p = 0.03). HBB did not improve polyp detection rate (0.89 vs 0.91, p = 0.90). HBB induced a significant rise in heart rate (p < 0.001) and more often tachycardia (17.6 vs 0%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Routine administration of HBB before and during colonoscopy yields only limited improvement in the technical performance of the examination compromised by high incidence of tachycardia.

Fecal transplantation, through colonoscopy, is effective therapy for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Treatment of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) with antibiotics leads to recurrences in up to 50% of patients. We investigated the efficacy of fecal transplantation in treatment of recurrent CDI. METHODS: We reviewed records from 70 patients with recurrent CDI who had undergone fecal transplantation. Fecal transplantation was performed at colonoscopy by infusing fresh donor feces into cecum. Before transplantation, the patients had whole-bowel lavage with polyethylene glycol solution. Clinical failure was defined as persistent or recurrent symptoms and signs, and a need for new therapy. RESULTS: During the first 12 weeks after fecal transplantation, symptoms resolved in all patients who did not have strain 027 C difficile infections. Of 36 patients with 027 C difficile infection, 32 (89%) had a favorable response; all 4 nonresponders had a pre-existing serious condition, caused by a long-lasting diarrheal disease or comorbidity and subsequently died of colitis. During the first year after transplantation, 4 patients with an initial favorable response had a relapse after receiving antibiotics for unrelated causes; 2 were treated successfully with another fecal transplantation and 2 with antibiotics for CDI. Ten patients died of unrelated illnesses within 1 year after transplantation. No immediate complications of fecal transplantation were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Fecal transplantation through colonoscopy seems to be an effective treatment for recurrent CDI and also for recurrent CDI caused by the virulent C difficile 027 strain.

Unkilned and large amounts of oats in the coeliac disease diet: a randomized, controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: There is evidence for the long-term safety of oats as part of a gluten-free diet in coeliac disease (CD). Oats is generally processed by kilning, which theoretically may change its antigenic properties and be the reason that it is tolerated by patients with CD. The aim of this study was to investigate the suitability of large amounts of unkilned oats, comparing its use with kilned oats in adult coeliac patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study group included 13 men and 19 women with CD in remission. The goal of daily intake of oats was 100 g during one year. These patients using oats as part of their gluten-free diet were randomized to two treatment groups. One group used regular oats and the other unkilned oats. After 6 months the patients changed the treatment groups. Food intake, symptoms, histology of the small intestine and the levels of endomysial antibodies were noted. RESULTS: No marked changes were found in the duodenal biopsies, in the levels of endomysial antibodies or in the well-being of the patients. Compliance with the diet did not change during the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Large amounts of both unkilned and regular kilned oats are well tolerated by adult patients with CD. Oats is therefore not harmful, even in its unkilned form, which indicates that its antigenic nature is not changed by common industrial food processing in such a way that would prevent the provoking of CD.

Sedation, topical pharyngeal anesthesia and cardiorespiratory safety during gastroscopy.

GOALS: In a prospective, double-blind study, we examined the effects of routine sedation and pharyngeal anesthesia on cardiorespiratory parameters during gastroscopy. BACKGROUND: Intravenous sedation and topical pharyngeal anesthesia are used to alleviate the discomfort during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Cardiorespiratory changes during gastroscopy are common. STUDY: Two hundred fifty two consecutive outpatients undergoing gastroscopy were assigned into 4 groups: (1) sedation with intravenous midazolam and placebo throat spray (midazolam group), (2) placebo sedation and pharyngeal anesthesia with lidocaine throat spray (lidocaine group), (3) placebo sedation and placebo throat spray (placebo group), and (4) no intravenous cannula nor throat spray (control group). Arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2), systolic and diastolic blood pressure and continuous electrocardiogram were recorded before, during, and after the endoscopic procedure. RESULTS: Gastroscopy increased heart rate in all study groups. Premedication with intravenous midazolam or lidocaine spray alleviated this rise (P<0.001, repeated measures analysis of variance) and decreased the incidence of tachycardia. Similarly, sedation with midazolam or topical pharyngeal anesthesia decreased the rise in systolic blood pressure (P<0.001). Midazolam produced lower SaO2 values during gastroscopy compared with lidocaine, placebo or control groups (P<0.001). However, episodes of desaturation (SaO2

Is routine sedation or topical pharyngeal anesthesia beneficial during upper endoscopy?

BACKGROUND: Upper endoscopy is an invasive procedure. However, the benefits of routinely administered sedative medication or topical pharyngeal anesthesic are controversial. The aim of this study was to clarify their effects on patient tolerance and difficulty of upper endoscopy. METHODS: A total of 252 patients scheduled for diagnostic upper endoscopy were randomly assigned to 4 groups: (1) sedation with midazolam and placebo pharyngeal spray (midazolam group), (2) placebo sedation and lidocaine pharyngeal spray (lidocaine group), (3) placebo sedation and placebo pharyngeal spray (placebo group), and (4) no intravenous cannula/pharyngeal spray (control group). The endoscopist and the patient assessed the procedure immediately after the examination. Another questionnaire was sent to the patients 2 weeks later. RESULTS: Patients in the midazolam group rated the examination easier and less uncomfortable compared with those in the other groups. The differences were especially evident in the questionnaires completed 2 weeks after the examination ( p < 0.001). Lidocaine did not significantly improve patient tolerance. However, endoscopists found the procedure easier in patients in the lidocaine group compared with the midazolam ( p < 0.01) and control groups ( p < 0.01) but not the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Routine administration of midazolam for sedation increased patient tolerance for upper endoscopy. However, endoscopists found intubation to be more difficult in sedated vs. non-sedated patients. Topical pharyngeal anesthesia did not enhance patient tolerance, but it did make upper endoscopy technically easier compared with endoscopy in patients sedated with midazolam without topical pharyngeal anesthesia, and in patients who had no sedation or pharyngeal anesthesia, but not in patients who received placebo sedation and placebo pharyngeal anesthesia.